Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 Charlotte Independence season

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep - nomination withdrawn. Per the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#Clarification_regarding_NSEASONS; while this nomination followed the advice at WP:NSEASONS, it seems that common practice is at odds with the advice given in the notability guidelines. WP:NSEASONS likely needs clarification, but it seems that this nomination is unnecessary. (non-admin closure) — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 21:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Charlotte Independence season

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NSEASONS. It is not possible to create an article consisting "mainly of well-sourced prose", as this season has not even started yet. WP:NSEASONS clearly says that this should remain a redirect to the team article until that can be satisfied. I made it a redirect but was reverted by the page creator.

Note: I am proposing that this be made into a redirect, not deleted. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 21:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the first game is February 12, this AfD won't close until at least February 6, what's the point of this? SportingFlyer T·C 21:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SportingFlyer, I've done what I could to avoid taking this to AfD, and followed the guidelines. This should remain a redirect until later in the season, but others reverted contrary to guidelines. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 21:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree - while I typically would be a delete/redirect vote, I simply do not see the utility of this AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 22:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SportingFlyer, Well fine. !Vote against it if you want. I tried the reasonable approach of turning it into a redirect until the season gets going, I was forced to come here due to running out of other less time intensive options (due to others not following guidelines with article creation). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 22:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Insertcleverphrasehere Your were forced to come here? What, to waste everyone's time with the worst nomination I've seen for a long time? There's already some prose in the article. I can't comprehend why you are doing this. Nfitz (talk) 07:08, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nfitz, I followed the guideline at WP:NSEASONS to the letter. I came here because I was reverted after converting to a redirect per that guideline. Note there is no guarantee that in a week’s time that someone will write prose for this article, even if sufficient sources exist. The 2019 season article has near zero prose and should also be redirected to the team article per WP:NSEASONS. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 09:32, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't actually follow the guideline to the letter - the guideline says only to redirect if no sourced prose can be created, which does not appear to be the case for either this or the 2019 season. Unless these seasons fail WP:GNG (and a quick search shows the Charlotte Post has already written a couple articles on the season) then both these articles are notable and should be kept and improved. SportingFlyer T·C 10:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you, User:Insertcleverphrasehere actually think that deleting a seasons article that is being actively worked on, that already contains prose at the beginning of the season, when previous seasons already exist, without even a talk page discussion, then I'd suggest you don't understand the guideline! Even if there was no prose - what's the rush? Why not just add some prose if you are concerned there isn't enough. Nfitz (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nfitz, Read the nomination, I wasn't proposing deletion, I was proposing redirection. I came here as a forum for discussion. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 18:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You proposed a redirection that deleted all the text in the article - and didn't even attempt to merge the deleted text into the move target. I'm not sure why you are arguing semantics - either way, if you actually still defend such a poor redirect and AFD after you've been told by everyone else you are wrong, then I question your competence to redirect articles, and suggest that a topic-ban is in order! Nfitz (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nfitz, As I said, WP:NSEASONS says that team season articles should consist "mainly of well-sourced prose". Otherwise it should be redirected to the team article. This article does not consist "mainly of well-sourced prose". Most of the season articles for this team fail this criteria, including this one. If you guys want to argue 'keep' based on the new season starting in the future and under the unfounded presumption that prose will be created when that happens; well, be my guest. I can't stop you. But it doesn't reflect on my proposal. Most of the other past years of this team also fail WP:NSEASONS, so I have zero expectation that that this will be expanded, even if sources become available to do so in several weeks. If previous year's articles were packed with prose, you might have a point, but they are not. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 18:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please withdraw this time-wasting nomination. Stop trying to be a wikilawyer. Nfitz (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've cited the relevant policy pages taht justify the nomination. I have asked for some clarification on the talk page of the sports notability page. I have nothing more to say and won't be withdrawing the nomination as I consider it within policy (actually regardless of the outcome of the discussion at the sports notability talk page, as it applies in either case). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 23:23, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not having prose isn't a WP:NSEASONS failure, and in any case you initially redirected this for being WP:TOOSOON. Withdrawal would be classy and appreciated, as you're now standing on an incorrect policy interpretation. SportingFlyer T·C 23:40, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You, User:Insertcleverphrasehere have failed to quote anything that justifies redirect. While WP:NSEASONS suggests there be a lot of prose, in terms of redirect, it only says It is strongly recommended that such articles be redirected to the team page if no sourced prose can be created.. However the article DOES have prose. So that rules on redirection on that basis. And even if it didn't have prose, then it would be very unusual that none could be created. I have no idea why you are choosing this hill to die on. Nfitz (talk) 02:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nfitz, Holy moly... please calm the hell down. You are acting like I've threatened your child or something. There is a grey area in the guideline that I am currently investigating (this article is not 'mainly prose', nor is it likely to magically become so once the season starts; previous year's articles have been abandoned). I'm currently waiting on more comments regarding this over at the WP:NSPORTS talk page. Nobody is going to die if this stays open a few more days or... *gasp*... gets closed as 'keep' after the full 7. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 03:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop swearing at other users you disagree with, and please stop the WP:BLUDGEON of everyone who disagrees with you. Nfitz (talk) 05:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:29, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. [[User:CAPTAIN RAJU|CAPTAIN RAJU] ]^(T) 22:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:03, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the nomination is fatally flawed given the season proper starts in a few days, and there is coverage already. Giant Snowman 11:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GiantSnowman, ummmm isn’t that the whole point of WP:TOOSOON? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 21:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Insertcleverphrasehere: No. WP:CRYSTAL specifically says, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." The topic will clearly be notable once the season starts and given the fact we're a just over a week out from the start of the season, with a sourced schedule, the event is almost certain to take place. We still need prose, but that will hopefully come and isn't a reason for deletion. I hope you will consider withdrawing this, as your best case scenario is enough other users agree this is WP:TOOSOON and you get this redirected for at most less than a week on a technicality. SportingFlyer T·C 04:46, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't understand this nomination. Their first pre-season match is literally next week. Nfitz (talk) 07:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.